'Statins' - nothing but slow poison?

Skeptic Ginger said:
"The Man"? Wow, what era are you from?

Since you've described some difficulty navigating through the junk info on the Net to get to the valid info, I thought I might help you out.

Start here with this very detailed though perhaps a tad out of date (1999) analysis of the billion dollar supplement industry. Of particular note, a couple of the Big Pharma companies are also in the top 15 biggest supplement producers.

Economic Characterization of the Dietary Supplement Industry

Funny you imagine the supplement industry isn't part of the corporate community.


Then there is the risk/cost vs benefit issue (you seem only interested in risk/cost) you can't find a concise source to cite regarding statins. Here's a thorough discussion of the issues you are concerned with. Many of us here are familiar with the author and trust him not to be in on any Big Pharma conspiracy. Many here know him personally if that helps you in any way. What should be more helpful, however, is the fact the discussion is not one sided by any means.

Statins – The Cochrane ReviewLike I said, risk/cost vs benefit, not risk/cost alone.

No doubt Big Pharma is marketing statins to the largest consumer base possible, regardless of the risk/cost vs benefit analysis. But marketing pharmaceuticals is a separate issue. You would be wise to view it that way. Every medical practitioner out there is not duped and/or in on the conspiracy. Patients can trust their physician (or can find one they can trust) and take individual medical advice rather than recommendations from drug advertisements and commercials.


As for your own lying eyes, yes they do. Why someone can't show you that your assumptions about the cause of your neighbor's health problem are absurd, is a more difficult problem. No doubt you've heard that you have no reason to single out the statins in this case when there are dozens of possible causes for the man's health problems. Are you a Guru? Can you put your hands on someone or just look at them and diagnose their medical condition? If you can do that, you should prove it. Apply for the million dollar challenge.

So what makes you so arrogant as to think you can look at someone and declare statins are their problem? Do you even know what the list of possible causes were for your neighbor's condition?


Yes, your reasoning does fall into the CT and definitely not the science forum.
Click to expand...

I'll get a more detailed reply together when I can.

But I can assure you that I am not a "guru", neither am I a 'health-nut' or or a compulsive supplement comsumer. The only ones I take are fish oil (regularly, not every day) and ascorbic acid (vitamin C, sort of).

I avoid processed unsaturated oil (easier siad than done when one realises how ubiquitous it is), but generally eat as much fatty food as I please in my diet (particuarly eggs), minimal carbs, except for that in the vegetables and leaves of which I also eat plenty

My cholesterol is "high" - I was expected to start taking statins when it was confirmed that I share my Dad's asymmetric aortic valve but politely declined), but my blood pressure has always been on the low side of normal.

Basically, my conviction is that the whole saturated fat/cholesterol "causal link" with vascular and heart diesease is bunk.

ETA >> (slightly OT) I'm 52, and my heart valve made itself known to me with an episode of 'ventricular tachycardia' in 2007, when I was 48, which is the age that such heart-valve problems typically make themselves known.

Amazing, my brother, who is 2 years younger, had the exact same thing happen two years later, i.e. at exactly the same age.
 
Last edited:
Supernaut said:
I'm not sure what you would accept as 'reliable'. As I said, a search for "statins side effects" produces (literally) reams of hits, and amongst them is much that, to me, is compelling.
Click to expand...


And yet you are unable, or perhaps unwilling, to link to any of this "compelling" evidence.
 
Mojo said:
The conspiracy theory doesn't work in the US either, because "Big Pharma" isn't the monolithic entity the theory requires.
Click to expand...

I agree. I just wanted my friends across the pond to remember that the citizens of the US pay a lot for pharmaceuticals as a rule--from each individual drug manufacturer.

No conspiracy implied--just a crappy fact of life here.

I have a "Cadillac" health insurance plan--but my drug coverage is more in-line with the average PPO, as they have a separate company managing the drug portion of the plan.
 
Folks, if you think statins have no side effects, your head is in the sand. No CT needed.

But supernaut's argument doesn't hold water either. Two anecdotes, without even a double challenge, are meaningless. Niall sounds like he might have a brain problem. Clogged carotid perhaps, brain cancer, or ??? BSE, even. ( eta: mini-strokes? ) He needs to be seen by an MD.
 
Last edited:
Supernaut said:
I'm not sure what you would accept as 'reliable'. As I said, a search for "statins side effects" produces (literally) reams of hits, and amongst them is much that, to me, is compelling.
Click to expand...

Any substance that can have an effect on your body can have side effects, whether that be herbs hand prepared by wise Peruvian villagers using a technique passed down through the ages to a tablet from AstraZeneca . As was mentioned above it is about weighing up whether the potential risk is worth the potential benefit.
 
Supernaut said:
I'm not sure what you would accept as 'reliable'. As I said, a search for "statins side effects" produces (literally) reams of hits, and amongst them is much that, to me, is compelling.
Click to expand...


"Reams of hits" by itself is not evidence for anything, except perhaps something related to human psychology.

Look up "9/11 truth", "moon landing hoax", or if you prefer medical topics, "vaccines and autism" or "morgellons disease", if you want to get "reams of hits", and I can tell you that many of them are compelling to many people.

What would be evidence are well-run studies, published in reputable peer-reviewed medical journals, linking statins with these symptoms. Can you point us to any of those? Until you do, all you have are anecdotes.

If your argument is that Big Pharma doesn't let these studies be published, then the thread does belong in the CT forum.
 
Last edited:
"Careful" analysis of the story in the OP has convinced me that, if I want to be healthy, I should not become friends with the entity going by the name of Supernaut. :th:
 
casebro said:
One tid bit to add: the typical five year study used to prove the efficacy of statins has a 95% drop out rate. But a claimed side effect rate of "less than 1%". New math, I guess?
Click to expand...
No source for this assertion, I guess?
 
casebro said:
So Supernaut knows two old men who are degenerating. They both take statins. Sounds like a major conspiracy to me.

Did I miss the part where all of their symptoms improved when they quit the drug?

Though I do know several people who got muscles pains on the statins, that went away when they quit. Lot's more than 1%. I think.
Click to expand...
So you accept results from a sample size of 2 or 2+several, a short time frame, and an uncontrolled poorly structured study while completely ignoring dozens of well designed peer reviewed studies that included thousands of participants over many years funded by multiple sources, not just the Big Pharma sources.

O K ....
 
Emet said:
I am an American, and don't subscribe to any CTs. I am a scientist and skeptic.

But for those of you who live where there is national health care, which generally has price controls on drugs--please don't forget that the US has neither a national health care policy, nor price controls on drugs.

I believe that the VA negotiates drug prices, but Medicare does not. And those of us who have private health insurance pay a butt load more for drugs--especially brand name drugs.

I did a quick on-line search for Crestor® 10 mg (30 tablets). The cost was $146.50. A local pharmacy may charge more.
If I used the right convertor, that translates into £89.27.

Some pharmacies in the US have very low or fixed costs on popular generic drugs--like Walmart.
Click to expand...
I'm confused about your point here. I belong to a coop HMO health care system and they switched to simvastatin as soon as it was available. It's a generic statin and a fraction of the cost of the initial statins.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
I'm confused about your point here. I belong to a coop HMO health care system and they switched to simvastatin as soon as it was available. It's a generic statin and a fraction of the cost of the initial statins.
Click to expand...

My point (if I had one ;)) was simply to illustrate the cost differences of drugs in the US vs. countries with national health care.

My insurance is through a not for profit professional association--they offer a PPO and a major medical/fee for service/indemnity plan (seems to go by various names). I have the latter.

I have no idea about the PPO; but my association also wheels and deals and gets secondary providers to obtain discounts for provider services, as well as drug prices.

For me, IIRC, after I meet my drug deductible (separate from my medical deductible), they will pay 60/70/80% of the cost of the drug, depending whether it is preferred/generic/brand--until I reach my out-of-pocket for the year--then they pay full cost.
 
I'm not sure how dangerous or not dangerous statins are but I haven't seen a study that shows that taking them decreases mortality. Anyone have a decent study that shows this?
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
"The Man"? Wow, what era are you from?

Since you've described some difficulty navigating through the junk info on the Net to get to the valid info, I thought I might help you out.
Click to expand...

What "difficulty navigating through the junk info on the Net to get to the valid info" did I "describe"?

You mean, not providing one or two arbitrary sources? If you're so incurious that you refuse to simply do as I suggested - Google/Bing/Ask "statins side effects", that's your problem, not mine.

Skeptic Ginger said:
Start here with this very detailed though perhaps a tad out of date (1999) analysis of the billion dollar supplement industry. Of particular note, a couple of the Big Pharma companies are also in the top 15 biggest supplement producers.

Economic Characterization of the Dietary Supplement Industry

Funny you imagine the supplement industry isn't part of the corporate community.
Click to expand...

What do you mean by "the corporate community"? You're not suggesting that corporate-owned industries make supplements!? NOooo!! Say it ain't so!


Skeptic Ginger said:
Then there is the risk/cost vs benefit issue (you seem only interested in risk/cost) you can't find a concise source to cite regarding statins. Here's a thorough discussion of the issues you are concerned with. Many of us here are familiar with the author and trust him not to be in on any Big Pharma conspiracy. Many here know him personally if that helps you in any way. What should be more helpful, however, is the fact the discussion is not one sided by any means.

Statins – The Cochrane ReviewLike I said, risk/cost vs benefit, not risk/cost alone.

No doubt Big Pharma is marketing statins to the largest consumer base possible, regardless of the risk/cost vs benefit analysis. But marketing pharmaceuticals is a separate issue. You would be wise to view it that way. Every medical practitioner out there is not duped and/or in on the conspiracy. Patients can trust their physician (or can find one they can trust) and take individual medical advice rather than recommendations from drug advertisements and commercials.
Click to expand...

And that settles it? Excuse me for not finding a single appeal to authority a definitive refutation.


Skeptic Ginger said:
As for your own lying eyes, yes they do. Why someone can't show you that your assumptions about the cause of your neighbor's health problem are absurd, is a more difficult problem. No doubt you've heard that you have no reason to single out the statins in this case when there are dozens of possible causes for the man's health problems. Are you a Guru? Can you put your hands on someone or just look at them and diagnose their medical condition? If you can do that, you should prove it. Apply for the million dollar challenge.

So what makes you so arrogant as to think you can look at someone and declare statins are their problem? Do you even know what the list of possible causes were for your neighbor's condition?


Yes, your reasoning does fall into the CT and definitely not the science forum.
Click to expand...

Your dismissal as "absurd" (without bothering to ask a single question) of my account of a man who, after I'd known him well for several years and who looked after as well as anyone his age, abruptly developed acute joint pain (he had NOT shown any predisposition to osteo-arthritis, had never suffered joint pain excepting in his back, due to injury/surgery, nor was he subsequently diagnosed as such) and SIMULTANEOUSLY suffered pronounced cognitive deterioration, which coincided PRECISELY with his beginning a regime of statins, and which are symptoms widely reported as typical of the side-effects of statins in those in middle-age or older .........well, that's rather absurd itself.

Whatever - would you mind providing couple of obvious examples of the "dozens of possible causes" for what happened to him, off the top of your head? I'll pass them on to his physician (who was also mine, as it happens) ASAP - he couldn't think of ONE himself.

BTW, have you heard of 'Baycol'? If not, just google it (groan). Lots more internet junk, but a lot of junk-litigation as well. Baycol's side effects were pretty much the same as the other statins - premature decrepitude and death - it just inflicted them a little too quickly to be dismissed as "the effects of ageing".

http://www.spacedoc.net/
 
Supernaut said:
Your dismissal as "absurd" (without bothering to ask a single question) of my account of a man who, after I'd known him well for several years and who looked after as well as anyone his age, abruptly developed acute joint pain (he had NOT shown any predisposition to osteo-arthritis, had never suffered joint pain excepting in his back, due to injury/surgery, nor was he subsequently diagnosed as such) and SIMULTANEOUSLY suffered pronounced cognitive deterioration, which coincided PRECISELY with his beginning a regime of statins, and which are symptoms widely reported as typical of the side-effects of statins in those in middle-age or older .........well, that's rather absurd itself.
Click to expand...


What part of "anecdotal" don't you get?

I'll ask again--where are the scientific studies linking statins to these symptoms?
 
Last edited:
Darat said:
Any substance that can have an effect on your body can have side effects, whether that be herbs hand prepared by wise Peruvian villagers using a technique passed down through the ages to a tablet from AstraZeneca . As was mentioned above it is about weighing up whether the potential risk is worth the potential benefit.
Click to expand...
The difference is, with actual prescription drugs, anything you report to your doctor after starting a drug may end up as a "side effect".
One of the drugs I take for psoriatic arthritis lists "increased psoriasis symptoms" as a side effect, and some sleep aids list "insomnia" as a side effect...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom